On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:17:04 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 06:14:53PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:27:10 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > besides this beeing butt ugly didn't we have a rule about never checking > > > task flags whether we're a compat process? And if we're going to allow > > > it it should be done properly. > > > > So, I have been thinking about this patch for a while (wondering how badly > > flamed I would get when I posted it :-)). What do you all think? Is this > > a reasonable thing to do? > > No, it's not because it makes it impossible to have 64bit processes > that run with 32bit ABI (not implemented right now but we don't > want to break that).
Why does this make it impossible? All I am defining is *arch specific* macros that tell us if the kernel was entered through a compat syscall. If your arch needs something other than my *examples*, then you are free to define it. > Please don't do this. It is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Then please tell us what the right thing to do is. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpTWXnfOgoXB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
